I'm not sure you can _legitimise_ violence just because you think you are in the right. Justify? Maybe--it depends on the the circumstances. Take people who are

I'm not sure you can _legitimise_ violence just because you think you are in the right. Justify? Maybe--it depends on the the circumstances. Take people who are violent in the name of religion - those people have a _fundamental_ belief they are in the right, and might well couch it in terms of having "the right, no, duty to commit violence against the evil <whatever>", but I don't see many legitimising their actions. I get the appeal of achieving noble goals through whatever means necessary, but the question of "What is a noble goal?", and the impact those means have the rights of others, is an _incredibly_ tough question to answer. I worry that legitimising violence just because you believe what you are doing is right short-circuits the necessary questions: is this _necessary_? (are they other means that could achieve the same end/be tried first?), is it _justified_? (is it a net gain for _everyone_/society, or is it just a personal opinion?), is it _proportionate_? (is the short-term impact of the violence justified by the long-term goals, or is it significant violence for little gain?). Maybe at the point, it could be seen as legitimate, but I find the idea of legitimising violence merely "in the name of something" worrisome.